The FA chairman is a moron

[ramsbottom]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54878817

Football Association chairman Greg Clarke has apologised for a reference to black players when talking to MPs about diversity.

Clarke said it was inappropriate for him to have used the term "coloured footballers".

He had been talking by video link to members of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport select committee.

"If I said it, I deeply apologise," said Clarke, 63, after being prompted to say sorry by MP Kevin Brennan.

The FA hierarchy really don't help themselves when it comes to shifting the opinion that they're just a bunch of out of touch, old farts who enjoy complimentary lunches.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Didn't he say something about homosexuality being a 'life choice' as well?

[neil62uk]

Apologies .... Just don't cut it 

The imbecilic lout  should SACK HIMSELF with vile comments like that 

[Gaspode]

He resigned....

[jono]

I’m struggling to get all hot under the collar about this. Yes he’s an old dinosaur and the “different career goals” one was particularly crass and stereotyped but you know what, the guy’s quotes look to me like someone who wants to get it right, he just isn’t equipped to do it. He’s being lambasted for semantics .. too many people ready to press the red pointy finger button for a misplaced adjective or pronoun. 

sure .. he’s resigned, and so he should .. his time has passed, saying what he did they way he did illustrates that, but I can’t help feeling a lot of the criticism is ill thought through and the linguistic torture that certain groups insist upon is counter productive for many level headed fair minded people. (Like me ?)
 

 

[GboroRam]

He's only early 60s. He'd have beed a young man in the 80s. Not quite the dinosaur you describe. 

[alexxxxx]

How does a person like this get to head of the game in the first place? It undermines all of the work that the organisation he heads does in terms of widening participation.

 

 

[jono]

17 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

He's only early 60s. He'd have beed a young man in the 80s. Not quite the dinosaur you describe. 

True, and to get to his position in today’s times I would have hoped to see someone of that age a lot more on the ball. Anyway he’s gone, shot himself in the foot, deserves it.

that doesn’t alter my feelings over the activists and semantics warriors who are, at times, blinded by their own self righteousness and monochromatic views. 

[Normanton Lad]

I'm an old fool but I can't understand why "coloured people" is wrong and "people of colour" is correct. If you called someone a black person in the 1960s that would have been seen as rude. "Coloured person" would have been seen as more polite. I suppose it is up to the group themselves to decide what they want to be called, but I have never read any clear directives about what they want to be called.

[TigerTedd]

12 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

I'm an old fool but I can't understand why "coloured people" is wrong and "people of colour" is correct. If you called someone a black person in the 1960s that would have been seen as rude. "Coloured person" would have been seen as more polite. I suppose it is up to the group themselves to decide what they want to be called, but I have never read any clear directives about what they want to be called.

I was thinking along the same lines, and trying to justify how a slip of the tongue can mean he has to resign. 

but you and I are not in such a high profile job. He earns a lot of money to be front and centre in a large organisation. Even if that organisation weren’t currently actively trying to promote more inclusivity (which does make this a much worse foot in mouth moment), someone so high profile, simply has to know better, it’s part of their job description. That’s why they get paid the big bucks. 

also, it wasn’t his first gaff, so I think it was more of a final straw thing, an accumulation of insensitive gaffs. Again, not a great image when you’re trying to promote inclusion. 

[StaffsRam]

It wasn't just a slip of the tongue, he made lazy generalisations towards certain ethnicities and women as well as showing a gross misunderstanding of gay people. He may well have survived the "colour" comment, but putting it alongside the other stuff he was coming out with, he practically handed himself a Darwin Award.

Despite "People of Colour" being the in-phrase in the States, my understanding is that it's not a term that's particularly well-liked over here as it lumps all non-whites together under the "coloured" banner, suggesting that our society is binary, white and non-white. Not a good look, or an accurate description, for the most cosmopolitan and culturally diverse society on the planet.

[BaaLocks]

2 hours ago, Normanton Lad said:

I'm an old fool but I can't understand why "coloured people" is wrong and "people of colour" is correct. If you called someone a black person in the 1960s that would have been seen as rude. "Coloured person" would have been seen as more polite. I suppose it is up to the group themselves to decide what they want to be called, but I have never read any clear directives about what they want to be called.

He has found himself saying the wrong thing at the wrong time but, indeed, he did say the wrong thing at the wrong time so has paid the price. Coloured is offensive as it has connotations from places where it was historically the term of reference - namely southern American states and, latterly, South Africa. I guess it is the point on the difference between racism and institutional racism - in the latter the terms that you use belie a deeper rooted frame of reference. And, ultimately, you aren't the one who gets to decide if what you said was offensive.

But I also think it is a hard one to keep up with, coloured was perfectly acceptable and I also don't like 'people of colour' because it somehow assumes that caucasians lack colour and that there is a very clear dividing line, those that have and those that don't. The one that gets me even more is BAME - I don't understand how it is embraced when, effectively, it stands for 'anyone who isn't white'. There is nothing positive, in my eyes, in grouping together all ethnicities that are not caucasian and giving them a meaningless acronym.

Best way around it? Try and get your head in a place where skin colour is utterly irrelevant. Not easy, don't suggest I am there, but all other paths lead to - at best - error.

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

He has found himself saying the wrong thing at the wrong time but, indeed, he did say the wrong thing at the wrong time so has paid the price. Coloured is offensive as it has connotations from places where it was historically the term of reference - namely southern American states and, latterly, South Africa. I guess it is the point on the difference between racism and institutional racism - in the latter the terms that you use belie a deeper rooted frame of reference. And, ultimately, you aren't the one who gets to decide if what you said was offensive.

But I also think it is a hard one to keep up with, coloured was perfectly acceptable and I also don't like 'people of colour' because it somehow assumes that caucasians lack colour and that there is a very clear dividing line, those that have and those that don't. The one that gets me even more is BAME - I don't understand how it is embraced when, effectively, it stands for 'anyone who isn't white'. There is nothing positive, in my eyes, in grouping together all ethnicities that are not caucasian and giving them a meaningless acronym.

Best way around it? Try and get your head in a place where skin colour is utterly irrelevant. Not easy, don't suggest I am there, but all other paths lead to - at best - error.

well done that was good at least for me.

I lived in Bahamas where I was a minority and there were daily references to whitey.  You are right the acceptability is a moving target and possibly more difficult he older you get because what was acceptable then isn't necessarily now.  I like your description of binary phrases and I get that now and of course you are right the BAME falls foul of that.  In a few years people will be offended by the use of it

[Mostyn6]

There’s got to be a point in time when you don’t describe anyone by race, therefore eliminating these faux pas. 
 

Sadly though, whilst sections of society feel secluded, excluded or discriminated against, you can’t respond to a section/group that has raised issue without referring to them as a group, it’s a pitfall that requires the most polished of diplomatic people to navigate, and those are the kind of people who generally can’t be trusted. 
 

I may have this back to front, as I’m white and apparently privileged, but I’d rather have someone honest but flawed and unpolished (human) in charge, than conceited PR trained sneaky snakes just saying the correct things. 
 

This bloke made a mistake, real people make mistakes! Yes, he should’ve known better and been drilled better, but I can’t help feeling some people are primed to fail by the virtue-signalling outrage trend! 

[Spanish]

34 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

There’s got to be a point in time when you don’t describe anyone by race, therefore eliminating these faux pas. 
 

Sadly though, whilst sections of society feel secluded, excluded or discriminated against, you can’t respond to a section/group that has raised issue without referring to them as a group, it’s a pitfall that requires the most polished of diplomatic people to navigate, and those are the kind of people who generally can’t be trusted. 
 

I may have this back to front, as I’m white and apparently privileged, but I’d rather have someone honest but flawed and unpolished (human) in charge, than conceited PR trained sneaky snakes just saying the correct things. 
 

This bloke made a mistake, real people make mistakes! Yes, he should’ve known better and been drilled better, but I can’t help feeling some people are primed to fail by the virtue-signalling outrage trend! 

Agreed the context has been forgotten, he was highlighting the challenges these groups face

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

But I also think it is a hard one to keep up with, coloured was perfectly acceptable and I also don't like 'people of colour' because it somehow assumes that caucasians lack colour and that there is a very clear dividing line, those that have and those that don't. The one that gets me even more is BAME - I don't understand how it is embraced when, effectively, it stands for 'anyone who isn't white'. There is nothing positive, in my eyes, in grouping together all ethnicities that are not caucasian and giving them a meaningless acronym.

It certainly says a lot that white society has to keep coming up with catch-all terms for "anyone whose ethnicity isn't white"

As @mostyn says "there’s got to be a point in time when you don’t describe anyone by race", and that journey starts when white society stops discriminating against "anyone whose ethnicity isn't white"

Let's hope we see that in our life times

 

[ariotofmyown]

As pointed out earlier, he said a lot more than "just" using the word "coloured". My Dad still uses that word, but he's not a racist. Neither is he head of the FA.

The things he said were so blatantly stupid you wonder if he dropped them in on purpose to escape the ongoing poo show of the EFL.

[jono]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

It certainly says a lot that white society has to keep coming up with catch-all terms for "anyone whose ethnicity isn't white"

As @mostyn says "there’s got to be a point in time when you don’t describe anyone by race", and that journey starts when white society stops discriminating against "anyone whose ethnicity isn't white"

Let's hope we see that in our life times

 

I agree with you Stiv,  but at the same time don’t you think that none white society needs to develop some tolerance of its own ? That  white society is in the most part actually trying quite hard to put things right, maybe none white society should reserve its ire for more serious issues than outdated adjectives coming from someone with good intent. If you look at what the guy said, it’s awkward, outdated, fumbling,  but the well meaning intent was clear. Wrong guy to be a spokesman in these times, but a bad guy ? Discriminatory ? 
 

 

[sage]

He used the term 'coloured footballers' but that was probably the least offensive thing he said (of the offensive things).

 

[Stive Pesley]

13 hours ago, jono said:

don’t you think that none white society needs to develop some tolerance of its own

That's a very difficult one - especially coming from a white person. I think by definition it's not for us to say what discrimination it is/isn't acceptable for a discriminated-against person to take issue with.

Yes there are definitely far larger things for the marginalised to protest about and it's  clear to all that "an old guy using an outdated adjective" is  a different level to "having your neck knelt on until you are dead by a racist cop", but then there were plenty of people out there twisting themselves in knots to come up with reasons why people shouldn't complain about that either!

You may disagree, but I think the journey towards a non-racialised society (that we all want) starts with us all understanding that it's all the small things that we let pass which lead to the bigger issues.

13 hours ago, jono said:

white society is in the most part actually trying quite hard to put things right

Definitely agree, but our own worst enemy here is the people who seek to undermine those efforts by suggesting we are trying too hard

For example I'm pretty sure that a certain someone will now come on here and make a weak argument against what I'm saying (even though I'm not really saying anything contentious - I'm just trying to have an intelligent conversation with one of the posters I respect and enjoy discussing things with) and they won't even realise the damage they are doing by going on the defensive against something where they could just say nothing at all.